Okay.

Ya right.

Just keep saying it and never give an alternative fact is born. It does not look anything like this ...


But I know, I know. Manchin lives in a different kind of State where Dem Voters and Independents and even Republican support is not what matters and as such him supporting a measure that is popular in all 3 groups would clearly hurt his election chances.

But Joe has his eyes firmly on his constituency. or so we just need to keep repeating to establish an alternative fact...



but I know, i know. When I presented data like this and cited a few more polls you hand waved and said you reject polls. Well those ones anyway. You never presented any other data or countering info. Just maintain and keep restating that it does not have to be true, no matter how obvious if you just keep repeating such.

Just like Trump, and the Ukraine hoax. Just like the stolen election. Stick to your alternative facts and look for those who will uncritically agree.

So next don't waste my time asking why I view you as I do as this explains it more than I ever could.

Senator Manchin is on record as supporting an increase in the Minimum Wage, but not as high as $15/hr.

Fun Factoid: This is my 8,888th post. I always enjoyed playing Crazy Eight's as a kid.

I am curious as Florida has a $15 minimum wage as it was on the state ballot. How easy would it be for other states to put it on the ballot?
The minimum wage in some states for servers is barbaric

lozen, do you think that $15/hr is equal pay throughout the entire state of Florida?

All I know is was on a state ballot and it gradually increases till it hits $15. I think in 2026. I am not sure if that is for all workers

In our province a conservative one at that we went straight to $15.00 an hour for everyone. It did cost a few jobs but overall it works really well

I was more curious how easy it is to get it on a state ballot. Currently what you have federally is disgusting

Asked a different way:

Do you think $15/hr in Collier Co (Naples) is the same as $15/hr in Hardee County (middle of nowhere)...... and how is that fair to businesses and individuals?

Manchin says $11 to pretend he is open to compromise but if everyone else said $11 he would say no.

He played the same game with many issues like the Filibuster. Sure I am open to change. Here are the things I am open such as a talking Filibuster,

He then (literally) has a meeting with his donors, and they slap him and tell him 'no we do not support so you do not either' and he then comes us and spins a story about his change of heart and why it needs to be preserved.

It was like McCarthy saying he would support a Jan 6th committee and presenting his demands which he thought the Dems would say No to. The Dem's shocked him and said yes' to all of them and Trump slapped him, said we are not doing that and McCarthy immediately changed his messaging.


It is all theatre for them.

This is Sinema, mocking Biden and her voters in the most blatant way she could think of to hammer home the message this is all a game and Biden and voters are just dupes ...



This scene re-enacted with Mitt Romney is a scene where the characters (show Ted Lasso) are celebrating the fact her character successful infiltrated a rival group by duping and deceiving them that she was on their side and then destroyed all their plans from within.

She chose to act this out with Romney as Biden's BBB seemed defeated.

Probably why imo implanting UBI and eradicating minimum wages would work better .

Local economy could adapt better , based on their own living standards with different wages while the federal government would assure a minimum of living standard throughout the country with UBI .

There will always be losers and winners when you put something like this in place. Its like asking $15.00 in NYC and $15.00 in Georgia. The answer to your question is Yes

Here in our province the one area were you saw labor cutbacks was the service industry. In that Industry I thought $10.00 was appropriate due to tips

Is the Filibuster sacrosanct?

It may be important enough to defend and preserve if the consequence is only letting POC's voting rights die.

It may be important enough to defend and preserve if the consequence is only women's constitutional right to abortions that die.

We must understand some lines must be drawn and sacrifices made to protect such an important tradition .



But what then is a line or sacrifice that is too big to make? One no citizen should ask or expect?

Well of course the protection of Republicans who would otherwise have to expose themselves and vote for the Debt ceiling legislation or filibuster it and take the electoral consequences.

When it comes to that gambit, Filibuster be damned, push it aside and ensure our GOP colleagues are not faced with impossible gambit.






When it comes to saving the Republicans this shame at least then we can see something important enough to push the filibuster aside!

I bet that did not go over well with Hannity and Tucker

The idea of 60 votes in todays system is a joke . 51 is the way it should be

I'm fine with 60 votes required to pass any bill. No filibuster required.

And an incumbent can only be re-elected with 60% of the popular vote.

I guess well see. It's going up a dollar a year so that's basically a 40 dollar a week raise if you're a full time employee. Given that we're in a time of inflation it might not even be an issue.

I suspect wages are so depressed that it's not going to make much of a difference anywhere. But possibly it will cause some extra inflation. Too many moving parts to ever really nail this stuff down of course but other places seem to do fine.

Of all the problems we have in our economy I don't think overpaying employees is one of them. Offshoring production really did damage businesses and individuals and no one really cared.

I thought Covid would be a big wakeup call towards that issue of producing nothing here in North America . Sadly it was not

I actually do think there is value in a mechanism like the filibuster. Tyranny of the majority can be a very real thing.

That said this current version of the Filibuster is a joke. It is morphed from a tool to block legislation giving POC rights to a tool to protect corporate interests. It serves no purpose, NONE, in slowing any meaningful Republican agenda items and they toss it aside as if nothing when they butt up against it and it is ONLY in place to give the corporate Dems one more means to promise and then not deliver on their agenda. 'oh we must preserve the filibuster' ...'we must preserve the Senate parliamentarian'.

Again one only need look at how quickly and easy both are tossed aside when the Republicans have a core item they want to deliver and the power to do so and how laughable those measures are in stopping them.

The simplest fix for Filibuster would be to invert it. Instead of requiring the party in power to get 60 votes, instead require the dissenting party to get 40 votes to enact a filibuster. Some may think if one cannot get 60 that means the other has 40 but that is not so easily the case. It is very different to have to affirm your vote to stop something then to simply vote against. It also makes it much easier for the Party in Power to play the 'split out one or two votes' game that they now face. But if/when an issue is so serious that the filibuster is desired and needed keeping that 40 together should be attainable. So you still have your filibuster but you shift the burden. And that is the way it should be. Elections do have consequences so it should be harder on the side who want to block the will of the voters, as represented by the majority, and it is the exact opposite now.

But people have to understand that corporate interests like the status quo as it sits now. They like the power dynamics. And the filibuster as it is morphed is the best protector of the status quo. The best block of any and all change that would shift some power away from Corporations and back to the people. So GOP and Corporate Dems being in their pockets will always try to preserve it.

In presidential elections, this effectively would limit all presidents to one term. 60% is such a high percentage that it would be widely viewed as irresponsible for an incumbent to even try for a second term.

Why are you fine with that ?

I suppose if that's the way it was meant to work it might be reasonable not to change it, but the original concept was a simple majority is what decides the vote.

This below is a powerful speech by Sen Raphael Warnock. I've time stamped so you need not hear the editorial from Maddow and only get his speech.

The biggest danger to people not taking this speech to heart is not republican resistance nor denial.


THe biggest danger will be the emergence of a counter narrative spun by the corporate Dems and those that support them. You will, as you always do, see them put forth an argument that Warnock is reasonable and impassioned but there are these other very reasonable and legit arguments that we must also consider and that we have to fight for. They will then say stuff like 'we must win on all of these and not just the one raised by Warnock' linking them in a way THEY ABSOLUTELY KNOW is meant to kill it and not get both done.

Manchin will argue bipartisanship is so important that we must not abandon and if that means this dies, that must be the cost. He just won't say that last part out loud.

There will be this gaslighting from the center Dems that kills any moment Warnock might get with this speech. And that gaslighting will often be ghost written directly by their donors.

I don't think I could ever get you to really acknowledge that, even though I am certain you know the game.

And when individuals rightly act angrily to this game and the gaslighting the response back will be 'how dare you question my authenticity and that I am not legit working to save bipartisanship or whatever 'fill in the blanks BS' they spit out'. The continued push to say civility must endure as a shield to mounting abuse must be stripped away.

Okay.

Over the years, I've known a fair number of people who worked in national politics, several in communications. I obviously am aware that advocacy groups of all stripes draft "model" legislation which they then urge members of Congress to support or adopt as their own. If a high profile member of Congress made a proposal or comment that was very industry specific and newsworthy, I could imagine that industry reps or an outside group associated with the industry might suggest responses to friendly members of Congress.

But I would be quite surprised if donors were ghost writing responses to something like Warnock's speech. I certainly have never heard that such a thing was commonplace.

Wow, my idea is even better than I thought!

I like the idea of making it extremely difficult to pass anything. If a bill can get 60% support, it is probably a worthy bill.

You will find all sorts of pundit talk explaining how Special Interest (mostly Think Tank) Ghost Writing has spilled over from its first instances of 'drafted legislation' to providing the 'talking points' to the Politicians they require to defend against Politicians they feel are challenging their interests.

Politicians are getting increasingly dumber and yet are increasingly the face of defense, (ex Marjorie Taylor Greene) and these politicians need tightly scripted replies or they would be useless in defense.

One of the more recent examples was an accidentally leaked step by step NRA talking points they were supplying to any GOP official on how to reply to any mass shooting incident. Bullet #1 was to 'show outrage and disdain that this tragedy was being used as a political talking point...NOW, in this instance, before the bodies were being buried. 'How dare you... I will not engage this disgusting political stunt now!'.

The NRA realized the best time to always get politicians agreed to some action and change was in the immediacy after a tragedy so the longer you could get them to not address the issue the better chance to diffuse any change. That talking point was then shown by various media being used in prior shootings by select pro gun Legislators to the 'tee'. They had this script prior and were using it effectively.

These Think Tank and Lobbies know all the Progressive and other wish list changes and want to ensure Manchin and others who would defend them have the benefiting of them War Rooming these varied replies and providing them the ones that will resonate best as a defense. They will spend the time distilling, sound boarding, and crafting the replies so the politicians know in advance what is best to say.


Ghostwriting the Law

Ghostwriting the Government

YOU ELECTED THEM TO WRITE NEW LAWS. THEY’RE LETTING CORPORATIONS DO IT INSTEAD.

But it's the job of the legislature to pass laws. Laws can be amended or ruled on via the court so they're not static.

Post offices are named with > 60% all the time. I'm not sure that's my idea of a 'worthy' bill.